The effect of context on the use of metaphor in discourse (La influencia del contexto sobre el uso de la metáfora en el discurso)

Zoltán Kövecses

Description

Abstract
In this article, I will discuss some contextual factors that play a role in the production of metaphors in real discourse. There are a number of such factors that have this effect (see Kövecses, forthcoming). They include the following: (1) the immediate linguistic context itself, (2) what we know about the major entities participating in the discourse, (3) physical setting, (4) social setting, and (5) the immediate cultural context. This article will be limited to the discussion of the first two.
Resumen
En este artículo examinaré algunos factores contextuales que desempeñan un papel a la hora de generar el uso de metáforas en la construcción del discurso. Hay varios factores que tienen este efecto (ver Kövecses, en preparación). Entre dichos factores, figuran los siguientes: 1) el inmediato contexto lingüístico propiamente dicho, 2) lo que sabemos al respecto de las entidades principales que operan en la generación del discurso, 3) el entorno físico, 4) el entorno social, 5) el contexto cultural inmediato. El presente artículo se ceñirá a los dos primeros factores.

Sujets

• ConTEXT
• Context (language use)
• Discourse
• Metaphor
• Contexto
• Discurso
• Metáfora

Informations

• Publié par: erevistas
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 14
• Langue: English

Extrait

02 IBERICA 17.qxp:Iberica 13 27/03/09 7:48 Página 11
The effect of context on the use of
1metaphor in discourse
Zoltán Kövecses
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest (Hungary)
[e-mail]
Abstract
In this article, I will discuss some contextual factors that play a role in the
production of metaphors in real discourse. There are a number of such factors
that have this effect (see Kövecses, forthcoming). They include the following: (1)
the immediate linguistic context itself, (2) what we know about the major entities
participating in the discourse, (3) physical setting, (4) social setting, and (5) the
immediate cultural context. This article will be limited to the discussion of the
first two.
Key words: context, co-text, discourse, metaphor.
Resumen
La influencia del contexto sobre el uso de la metáfora en el discurso
En este artículo examinaré algunos factores contextuales que desempeñan un
papel a la hora de generar el uso de metá foras en la construcción del discurso.
Hay varios factores que tienen este efecto (ver Kövecses, en preparación). Entre
dichos factores, figuran los siguientes: 1) el inmediato contexto lingüístico
propiamente dicho, 2) lo que sabemos al respecto de las entidades principales
que operan en la generación del discurso, 3) el entorno físico, 4) el entorno
social, 5) el contexto cultural inmediato. El presente artículo se ceñirá a los dos
primeros factores.
Palabras clave: contexto, co-texto, discurso, metá fora.
The effect of the linguistic context on metaphor use
Let us provisionally think of discourse as being composed of a series of
concepts organized in a particular way. The concepts that participate in
ibéric a 17 [2009]: 11-24 1102 IBERICA 17.qxp:Iberica 13 27/03/09 7:48 Página 12
Zo LTán Kö v Ec SES
discourse may give rise to either conventional or unconventional and novel
linguistic metaphors. Suppose, for example, that we talk about the progress
of a particular process and want to say that the progress has become more
intense. There are many ways in which this can be done. We can say that the
progress “accelerates”, “speeds up”, “gains momentum”, “moves faster”,
“picks up” or “gathers speed”, and many others. These are all relatively
“conventional” ways of talking about an increase in the intensity of a
process. They are all based on the conventional generic-level mapping
In TEn SITy IS SpEEd , as it applies to the concept of progress (in relation
to a process). The larger metaphors within which the mapping In TEn SITy
IS SpEEd works are also well established ones: pr o g r ESS IS mo TIo n
f o r Wa r d and, even more generally, Ev En TS a r E mo v EmEn TS.
However, the particular concepts that refer to the specific process we are
talking about may influence the selection of the linguistic metaphorical
expression in talking about the intensity of the progress at hand. The
linguistic metaphors we actually use may be much “less conventional” than
the ones mentioned above. a s an example, consider a headline from The Wall
Street Journal Europe (6 Jan. 2003). It reads (taken from Kövecses (2005) and
reanalyzed here):
The a mericanization of Japan’s car industry shifts into higher gear.
Here, the process is the a mericanization of Japan’s car industry and the
suggestion is that it has become, or is becoming, more intense. Instead of
describing the property of “increase in intensity” by any of the conventional
linguistic metaphors above, or, as a matter of fact, by a large number of
additional ones that could be used (such as “galloping ahead”), the author
uses the relatively unconventional linguistic metaphor “shifts into higher
gear” (which is also an instance of the general metonymy a c TIo n f o r
r ESu LT, where shifting into higher gear results in higher speed, that is, we
have SHIf TIn g g Ea r f o r g o In g f a STEr ). Such headlines are also
discussed by White and Herrera (2009).
I propose that this particular expression is selected because of the influence
of the immediate linguistic context, that is, the concepts that surround the
conceptual slot where we need an expression to talk about “an increase in
intensity” (of the progress of a process). Since the process is that of the
a mericanization of Japan’s “car” industry, we find it natural and highly
motivated that the author of the utterance uses the expression “shifts into
12 ibérica 17 [2009]: 11-2402 IBERICA 17.qxp:Iberica 13 27/03/09 7:48 Página 13
THE Ef f Ec T o f c o n TEx T
higher gear” in that conceptual slot in the discourse. Since the surrounding
context includes the car industry, it makes sense to use the motion of a car,
and not the motion of some other entity capable of motion, in the
metaphor. It seems to me that the pressure of coherence (i.e., trying to be
coherent with the linguistic context) is at work here.
Jean a itchison (1987) made an interesting observation that bears on this
issue. She noted that in newspaper articles and headlines about (a merican)
football games, the names of the teams may select particular metaphors for
defeat and victory. She found such examples as follows in the sports pages
of a merican newspapers: “c ougars drown Beavers,” “c owboys corral
Buffaloes,” “a ir f orce torpedoes the n avy,” “c lemson cooks r ice” (a itchison,
1987: 143). metaphors used in these sentences are selected on the basis of
the names of football teams. Since beavers live in water, defeat can be
metaphorically viewed as drowning; since cowboys corral cattle, the
opponent can be corralled; since navy ships can be torpedoed, the opponent
can be torpedoed, too; and since rice can be cooked, the same process can
be used to describe the defeat of the opponent. The metaphors in the above
sentences indicate that the target domain of d Ef Ea T can be variously
expressed as “drowning”, “corralling”, etc., the choice depending on the
concepts (in this case, corresponding to the names of the teams) that make
up the utterances in which the metaphor is embedded.
d efeating an opponent is a form of symbolic control, in the same way as the
sports activities themselves are symbolic activities. In general, defeating an
opponent is conceptualized as physically and/or socially controlling an entity
(either animate or inanimate). The high-level, schematic conceptual
metaphor d Ef Ea T IS pHy SIc a L a n d /o r So c Ia L c o n Tr o L is
pervasive in English (and also in other languages); metaphorical words for
this conceptualization abound: “beat”, “upset”, “subdue”, “knock out”,
“clobber”, “kill”, “demolish”, “conquer”, “crush”, “dash”, “destroy”,
“dust”, “lick”, “overcome”, “overwhelm”, “ruin”, “stump”, “vanquish”,
“thrash”, “trample”, “trounce”, and literally hundreds of others. The words
all indicate some form of physical or social control. The words “cook” and
“torpedo” from a itchison’s (1987) examples could be added to this list,
although they seem to be somewhat “less conventional” than the others.
Since defeat is conceptualized as physical and social control, it makes sense
for the author to use the words “cook” and “torpedo” in the conceptual slot
in the neighborhood of the concepts r Ic E and n a v y, respectively. It
makes sense because the frame for r Ic E involves c o o KIn g and the
ibérica 17 [2009]: 11-24 1302 IBERICA 17.qxp:Iberica 13 27/03/09 7:48 Página 14
Zo LTán Kö v Ec SES
frame for n a v y can involve the weapon To r pEd o , on the one hand, and
because c o o KIn g and To r pEd o In g are ways of physically
controlling an entity, on the other.
There is, however, more complication we need to be aware of. In the
Spo r TS c o mpETITIo n frame, or more specifically, the a mEr Ic a n
f o o TBa LL frame, there are two opponents, there is an activity on the basis
of which the winner is decided, and a resulting relationship between the two
opponents: one opponent defeating the other. g iven these minimal elements
in the frame, we can say that one team defeats another and we can choose a
word from the list above to express this meaning. We do this on the basis of
the metaphor d Ef Ea T IS pHy SIc a L/So c Ia L c o n Tr o L. However,
how do the concepts of r Ic E and n a v y that are used in the source
domain of this metaphor end up in the a mEr Ic a n f o o TBa LL frame?
a merican football teams are not identical to r Ic E and n a v y ; these are
concepts that we primarily associate with very different entities, such as
plants and the armed forces, respectively. f ootball teams are not plants and
armed forces. o bviously, they enter the frame because they are the names of
the two football teams. They enter it on the basis of the me